Posted
by
Soulskill
on Tuesday August 23, 2011 @11:14PM
from the flying-spaghetti-malaria dept.

sciencehabit writes "Whether or not they believe in God, evolutionary biologists may need to pay closer mind to religion. That's because religious beliefs can shape key behaviors in ways that evolutionary theory would not predict, particularly when it comes to dealing with disease. According to a new study, some of today's major religions emerged at the same time as widespread infectious diseases, and the two may have helped shape one another. The same dynamics may be reflected today in how people in Malawi deal with the AIDS epidemic."

The survey also revealed that the prospect of getting help was enticing. In the past 5 years, about 400 of those responding have shifted religions, many of them moving to Pentecostal or the African Independent Churches, places where the promise of receiving care is greater and the stigma of having AIDS is less, Hughes noted.

The evidence presented suggests that however born, growth/conversion of religion in the study area is at least in part motivated by the incentive of some health care.

Actually the opposite can sometimes be true. Religion can also be a practical survival manual based upon observations. For example I believe if one adheres to the old testament prohibitions against eating certain types of seafood then one will avoid most of the unsafe species in that part of the world. We say don't do something because the surgeon general says so, thousands of years ago they said don't do something because God said so. Maybe its the telephone game: "great healer says" becomes "great shaman says" becomes "God says", all based on a scientific sort of process - at least the observation part, can't say if they also did the experimentation part.

Are you sure you are not operating on fear of a particular 3 or 4 thousand year old book and rejecting everything in it in an irrational and ignorant way? If we were talking about Hawaiian kapu and its instructions on fishing and such would you be more open minded?

I do not agree. Look at all the religious nutters who claim that 'believe in God and he will heal you' and if you do die, it was because you were a bad person.Also, some religions basically tell you that if you die in this life, you will move on to a better (after)life. So don't try to change anything.

If these people think like this so firmly that they would rather die then get a vaccination or medical help for the smallest of things, what do you think they will do when an epidemic strikes?

For example I believe if one adheres to the old testament prohibitions against eating certain types of seafood then one will avoid most of the unsafe species in that part of the world.

Bullshit. The injunctions against certain food were based simply on the personal preference of a few people with schizotypal personalities. This video [boingboing.net] is a very engaging explanation of the connection between craziness and religion via OCD-type behavior.

Partial disproof of what you say can be found in the middens of Ancient Near Eastern people: civilizations eating pork and shellfish lived next door to Jewish civilizations that didn't, and there's no indication one thrived worse than the other.

lots of people are incapable of critical thinking, they need simple rules. religion provided those rules in the past but is clearly outdated in the modern world. religion is just a failed example of early government

The mainstay of religion is fear of death. The vast majority of people seem to be incapable of living with the fact that when you die that's it. There's nothing else. It's all over for you. Completely. So those people need the delusion that they (somehow) live on after death - which is totally unreasonable of course. Religion provides a solid base for that delusion - so long as you don't look too deeply into it.

Agreed that they are not mutually exclusive, but many specific religious groups have a tendency to get in the way or panic when asking for more details. Religion isn't in and of itself a disease that prevents progress, but it often converts to it. I'm sure countless plagues people were trying to come up with a cure for, when a church or group got in the way saying "we need to apologize to god, stop waisting your time trying to cure it with mortal tricks you heathen". That dosn't make every religous person a

As Socrates said, at least I know that I know nothing. Those who replace "I don't know" with "it was God" forfeit their ability to learn more and those who militantly cling to their answer even as "I don't know" gets replaced with a proper explanation hold us back.

Not all people are the same. Whilst it is all well and good to promote greater understanding of the world around you, some people, in fact quite a lot of people are simply incapable of it.
Whilst they might by rote remember some facts, they don't ever understand them, not by choice by by genetics and those people will always be drawn to more comfortable answers.

Answers that say you can alter random chance in highly complex interactions, that prevent you and those you care about from suffering by convincing some superior to intercede on your behalf.
Whilst that time is better spent on coming up with ways of reducing the probability of harmful outcomes not all people are capable of doing so.

Some people just need religion of one form or another, to maintain a stable psychological attitude in a world of, to them, of chaotic outcomes. So it's not about eliminating religion, it more about minimising the harm of religion and it promoting positive sociological outcomes via religion.
The worst of the worst, when it comes to religion, is politicians who use it to gain power. The more a politician reaches for religion the more corrupt they are.

I was just about to ask that. I have never understood how people can say that everything must have a creator so therefore that proves that there is a god. But at the same time they will say that god didn't have a creator.

If that was true... wouldn't scientists have gotten there by now ? On the contrary, it seems we keep on digging deeper, asking the more and more complex questions and we always find answers that are mathematical, scientific and rational without having to get to God.The only time you get to god is if you give up and go for God as a cop-out.Now it's true that deep enough the theories aren't that verified yet (we've yet to come up with a way to experimentally

I have an imaginary friend. His name is Fred. His dad made you and me and everything around us. You must worship him so that you can live forever and if you don't, you will burn in hell for all eternity. Please worship Fred. He loves you... he will punish you if you don't love him.

The 'supernatural' in practice means 'incomprehensible' - unknowable by humans - something forever beyond human ken, something we will never be capable of understanding. Different terms are used - the 'ineffable', the 'mystery', and so forth - but the basic idea is the same.

Fear and ignorance go hand in hand, what you don't know can scare you since you don't know if it's dangerous. But you cannot know everything as the world is too complex for a human to understand entirely within one lifetime. If you could augment humans with all that knowledge right from their childhood it might be possible but the risk of manipulation by humans is too damn high, who knows what "truths" China would implant into people?

Probably because it's not true. Sure if you completely refrain you're in the clear, but the population would plummet and ultimately being careful is in general sufficient to avoid the problems that have become linked with sex.

I don't understand why people fail to realize this. As an extension, abstinence prevents a world of problems from even happening.

Because many people don't like taking responsibility for their actions. For example : abortion. Sure, it's not in the baby's best interest to be born to a 16 year old high school drop out. So, let's kill it.

Abortion is not necessarily the easy way out. Abortion is not a pleasant experience, physically or emotionally, and it may be tempting for the mother to keep the child, even if she knows it will be raised under less than adequate conditions. If you don't believe abortion is equivalent to murder, abortion may be the most responsible thing to do.

Also, I live in a secularised country (Sweden) where all school children have sex ed, contraceptives are freely sold to all ages, and abstaining from pre-marital sex is seen as a little weird. We have virtually no problems with teenage pregnancies. Most kids have their first sexual experiences some time during high school, but they don't become particularly promiscuous, and most settle into monoagamous relationships (with or without marrying). When people eventually marry, the reason is commonly to have legal protection in case something unexpected happens, especially for the children's sake.

In case you've heard the rumour about Sweden having the world's highest suicide rates, it's a myth [mac.com].

>I don't understand why people fail to realize this. As an extension, abstinence prevents a world of problems from even happening.

That's a false assumption, it prevents some problems (assuming human perfection in execution on a level that is near impossible to achieve), but it causes a whole bunch of OTHER health problems. Religious people don't like to admit it but any sexologist will tell you that severe sexual frustration causes massive health problems including many psychological ones but also physical ones (and of course psychological problems can have physical symptoms which just throws more fuel on the fire).

That's not even considering the massive and proven health benefits of a regular and healthy sex life.

Sorry, science says it's a BAD SOLLUTION and the negative side effects are far worse than the risks of non-abstinence. The fact that abstinence in reality is a near impossible thing to achieve on a large scale just means that attempts to enforce it actually AGGRAVATES the problems it was meant to resolve - because it means that the sex which DOES happen is now unsafe on a much larger scale.

Ultimately safe sex is a far better compromise than abstinence if your goal is disease control.

The AIDS pandemic in China was caused by unsafe blood donation practices.

Specifically, the blood merchants would extract blood from villagers, pool it together in a big tub, extract the plasma, and then reinject it. Part of it was a cost-cutting measure, part of it was due to local religious beliefs.

No, the Vatican's official policy is that condoms are okay to use in the interest of preventing disease. It took way too long for them to reach that conclusion, so criticize them for that. But don't spread misinformation.

Agreed. And as the other AC said, they're sort of conceding a "lesser of two evils" stance.

Credit given.

However, they're generally pushing abstinence in lieu of safe sex education when possible. On the whole of it, it probably results in less total sex, but more unprotected sex. The original question was whether religion was influencing the course of epidemics, and they pretty clearly are.

And of course, the biggest* Maybe you'd like to have control over your fertility

The reason the Catholic church is opposed to condoms remains the same - there's one particular condition they DO want to promote the spread of. It's called Catholicism. The primary vector for getting it is from your parents.

Yes, because the Catholic church, ages ago, misunderstood the story of Onan.

Basically, this guy Onan had his brother die, and his brother had no children. In those day God's law required Onan to marry his brother's wife, and have a kid with her and pretend it was his brother's kid. (Pretty stupid, eh?)

So he did so, but during sex, he, uh, pulled out, and, as the bible says, 'spilled his seed on the ground'. So...uh...he wouldn't waste his seed. (Yeah, I find it an odd thing to avoid. This kid was going to

When disaster hits and you have no idea what causes it, you're helpless. And people don't like feeling helpless. So they start praying. Does it help? Most likely not, but hey, at least they're doing something. Whether it helps or not is not really that critical, what matters is that people believe they're somehow reacting to it instead of just sitting there, helplessly, waiting for disaster to strike again.

Thinking about it, it bears a lot of semblance to how we deal with the terror threat...

I've got to say I sympathize with the "got to do something" feeling. Years ago, my son had a febrile seizure, turned grey and stopped breathing. As my mother-in-law gave him rescue breaths and the ambulance was on the way, I was left with nothing to do. I couldn't just stand there, helpless, and watch my baby on our bed as my mother-in-law tried to get him breathing again. So I gave myself a job: Run back and forth between my son on the bed and the front door looking for the ambulance. At one point, my

Are you sick? Come ask your invisible friend in the sky for help! Come share air with dozens of others asking for other things. Too sick to leave home? We'll send a carrier to your home to take your problems back to the church!

I jest, of course, but not by much. Religion relies on community, just as much as an epidemic does. That said, there's also a few interesting correlations between some religious taboos and common disease carriers. It's like whoever designed the religious laws somehow knew about germ theory hundreds of years before anyone else. Either that, or they just noticed that certain things smelled bad, and people who spent time near bad-smelling things got sick.

Epidemics have the side effect that the survivors, on the whole, are more resistant. Populations will soon breed back up to the level they were before, only this time you're starting from tougher stock.

A few iterations of that and you've got a pretty awesome secret weapon to use against brown people (for suitably red values of brown) who are in your way.

I absolutely love any story that gives self-righteous atheists an excuse to say, for the umpteenth time, that religion is categorically an evil, that organized religion is clinically insane, that religion has caused more suffering in human history than all biological and political causes combined, etc.

Before you get started this time, how about you give it a rest? We understand your opinions, but most of us are agnostic if we even care one way or another; likewise most of us realize that religion inspires good as well as evil, and see no need to throw the baby out with the bath water. Most of all it just gets really fucking boring listening to your hate fest.

You hate "religionists" and they hate you. The rest of us would rather you all shut the fuck up.

You hate "religionists" and they hate you. The rest of us would rather you all shut the fuck up.

Can I get an amen from the non-hipster reasonable-atheists in the house? That's right, I'm talking to you, the people who don't go out of their way to be a-holes. Yup, that's right hipsters, everyone hates you and the fact that you hate everything else.

I'm actually not that militant in my atheism; I believe the world would, on the whole, be a better place with less religion and more rationality, but I don't go on about it.

However, religious people do go on about it. It's much more subtle that evangelism; how many times have you seen a character in a film, etc, thank god for something or pray? How many films are there based on the premise of there being a god, heaven, etc (vs how many based on the premise that there is no such thing)? How many religious symbols do you see in day to day life (from a cross around someone's neck to a church you travel past)? How often are religious figures or issues reported on in the news?

It all adds up to an unintentional, background pushing of religion. It's little wonder that some people feel the need to push their atheism (and that's ignoring the theists that do go round actively pushing their views; I've never told anyone they're an idiot for believing, but I have been told *to my face* I'm going to Hell for not believing).

I'm a naturalist (that is, I don't believe in the supernatural). I live in a secularised country (Sweden) where non-religiousness is the norm, and frankly, I think many atheists are embarrassing. Many of them seem as fanatical as the worst religious people, and take every chance to put down religion and proclaim what idiots its believers are.

I can understand that atheists who are in a minority have a need to strengthen their beliefs and gang together against the world outside, but where I live, it just make

Slashdot is news for NERDS. Nerds tend to like rational thought. Many people who self-identify as nerds are likely to see the idea of an imaginary sky-friend as silly, especially when the people who are most vocal in their support of their sky-friend often are those who seem to want to interfere in the actions of others, or who fight science in ways that would be hilarious if they didn't have an effect on us. It's not surprising that some of both posts and moderation would be dedicated towards promoting a viewpoint that is less than supportive of religion in general, and organized religion in particular.

Obviously, not wanting to hear about pedophilia in the church yet again makes one not care about raped children. Flawless reasoning. Apparently I couldn't care less about the Holocaust either--what a load off my mind!

What does your continued outrage actually accomplish? What religious person is going to listen to your litany and say, "oh hey, I was wrong. Oops."? It also makes people defensive to be yelled at, regardless of where the truth of the matter lies. I suppose you can hope to recruit the non-religious to your view, but I don't see what that accomplishes either. The people you have a problem with are happily unaffected by your views because of your belligerence, the people who agree with your outrage... agree, and the people who just want to live their lives continue to wish you would shut up. Picking a single issue to champion would probably be more effective. That way it's not "you vs. religion" but instead "you vs. priest pedophilia". You might find a way to make some useful progress that way, too, when the issue is small enough.

Most people have enough to do with living their own lives and dealing with those immediately around them. Maybe it's heartless, and it's not optimal, but it's reality. If you want to change the world, you have to deal with that reality. Shouting at people so you can get an emotional release isn't enough and mostly makes people want to ignore you all the more. You make some very good points, by the way. Your view is incredibly one-sided and falls prey to the fallacy of "the enemy is pure evil", but still, the lack of questioning religion tends to foster is a terrible evil and the other things are awful as well. Your good points are just cast in the light of hatred to such a degree that my instincts strongly tell me to ignore them and latch on to the flaws instead while refusing to change my own positions.

It is quite clear from some of the rules laid down in religious texts that one of the purposes that religion served in historical times was to educate the population about sanitary practices, such as the relative danger of eating meat from certain animals and seafood as opposed to others. Interestingly, Christianity as practised in the West seems to ignore most of the rules of this category, while Islam inherits most of them from Judaism, giving its own twist on the rituals surrounding them.

The irony of most Christian denominations' disbelief of evolution is that religions evolve through natural selection analogously to life forms. In fact, it is through evolution that the Abrahamic faiths came to dominate Europe and the Middle East.

Memes are not good or evil in themselves, but they are all paracitic and potentially harmful. The meme only wants to spread, the more successfully it does so- the better. The most successful memes are both long-lived and fast spreading, religions are among the most successful memeplexes, but Beethoven's first symphony is one too (practically everybody can hum the first bar).

Memetics studies the way ideas spread among populations by analogy to viruses and othe

They seem to be using a very narrow (i.e. unscientific) understanding of what evolutionary theory predicts. It is adaptive to adopt altruism in the face of a crisis that requires higher than usual degrees of co-operation.

Also I'm guessing "[l]inking early epidemics to the emergence of disease" was supposed to refer to something more than the definition of epidemic being the emergence of a widespread disease.

At least one study has shown scientifically that people's behavior (in this case, children) was distinctly impacted positively by the concept of 'an invisible being watching me'. In the case I'm thinking of, children played a game that gave them both opportunities and rewards for cheating. Cheating, unsurprisingly, was endemic in the control group (no adult present). When an adult was present, the incidence of cheating was greatly reduced. When the children were told convincingly that there was an invisible person sitting in the same chair the adult had used, cheating was even LESS.

Further, there has been some discussion of the value of shared rites (usually religious) in predicting who will reliably follow a society's rules. If a person can't/won't reliably adhere to shared religious rites that supposedly are beneficial at little/no cost to the individual, this would predict that person will be unlikely to adhere to more important societal norms as well.

(One might further observe that this remains largely true, at least in the US. The left is politically characterized as individualist and chaotic, and the (religious) right as collectivist and 'marching in lockstep'. This has resulted in a balanced political landscape, despite a clear majority of voters self-identifying as Democrats (left of center).)

So the value of religion to early societies is pretty clear.

Nevertheless, I'd disagree with their conclusions here. They point to the rise of the great organized religions around the era of plague - this was also (unsurprisingly) the rise of widespread urbanization, probably something that I'd guess had more to do with both the spread of disease AND the rise of religion.

Seems to me the summary has the horse before the cart. Epidemics influence religion, not the other way around. During the plaque of the Middle Ages, European towns were decimated. Monasteries, being isolated from the town fared much better. Therefore, religious practices changed to reflect those of the monks. Yes, it is true much of it happened because people thought that God had spared the monasteries, however, without the plague none of it would have occurred. The plague or epidemic was the catalyst for the change in religious thought, not the other way around.

And, for the many posts referring to religion blaming natural disasters on God, are we talking 20th century or centuries ago? I'm pretty sure that blaming unknown forces on some superstitious being or practice was quite common in all cultures. Breaking a mirror causing seven years of bad luck has nothing to do with a deity.

James 5:13-15 ESVIs anyone among you suffering? Let him pray. Is anyone cheerful? Let him sing praise. Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.

Ah yes, praying for someone, all the benefits of claiming to help without any of the actual work.

Anyway, the article ignores the fact that there is a tradition in the judeo-christian faiths of seeing disease as either a punishment from god or something you brought on yourself through sin.

Eg:

"Behold, the Lord will strike your people with a serious affliction -- your children, your wives, and all your possessions; and you will become very sick with a disease of your intestines, until your intestines come out

"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne."
But what says Psalms 146:3? "Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help."

Actually, many secular scholars agree that a man named Jesus bar-joseph did indeed exist. I believe you're trying to imply that Jesus wasn't the son of god. Get your argument straight, and maybe you'll stop looking so silly.

Yes and the cook at the bar my dad goes to from time to time is Jesus as well. It's not really very useful to suggest that somewhere there was a man who had the same name and whose father had the correct name. I'm sure there's any number of individuals running around today for whom this would apply as well.

To Chistians who believe in Hell, God has made it clear: if you break the rules you will be tortured for all eternity. Such Christian parents need to ensure their children learn this - obey or suffer horrible pain. Beating their children when they disobey is God's way - God's approach to ethics.

As far as I know, child molestation is not more common among catholic priests than among other professions. The scandal was based on the fact that the catholic church covered up their priests' "mistakes", and just relocated them to a new parish.

Mao, Hitler and Stalin were atheists. The 30 years war, the Crusades, the Spanish inquisition, Al Queda were religious. Your point is? Most mass murder is because of greed, not religion. Religion is used to justify the greed in some cases. In other cases, politics or biology are used as justification. But greed is at the heart of almost all killing and war. An atheistic world would be neither more peaceful nor less peaceful because even atheists are just as greedy as everyone else.

You also skirt round a key point: yes, religion is used to justify appalling acts, but as far as I know atheism never has been. Not once. No-one has ever said "We must kill these people because they believe in a god". Religion is harmful because it can be used in this way. It can be used as a propaganda tool in a way non-belief cannot. When a dictator says "These people are against God and must die"', there are people listening and nodding their heads in agreement. Enough people genuinely believe that such rationalisations are valid that it enables mass campaigns of murder and terror.

...No-one has ever said "We must kill these people because they believe in a god". Religion is harmful because it can be used in this way.....

People in North Korea who believe in god may disagree with your statement...but I will agree with your comment that there are no selfless atheists who go around killing people merely because they believe in a god. When a dictator chants, "these people are against God and must die", most people nodding in agreement are thinking about how much they can steal and enrich themselves or how to show sufficient enthusiasm so as not to be targeted for murder themselves. Again, I stand by my original comment that Gre

Mao, Hitler and Stalin were atheists. The 30 years war, the Crusades, the Spanish inquisition, Al Queda were religious. Your point is? Most mass murder is because of greed, not religion. Religion is used to justify the greed in some cases. In other cases, politics or biology are used as justification. But greed is at the heart of almost all killing and war. An atheistic world would be neither more peaceful nor less peaceful because even atheists are just as greedy as everyone else.

Hitler was a Catholic. It is a widely believed misconception that Hitler was an atheist, just as it is a misconception that he was a vegetarian.

Hitler himself wrote in Mein Kampf... "I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's work."

Years later he was also quoted as telling General Gerhart Engel... "I am now, as before, a Catholic and will always remain so."

Nazi Germany worked with the Catholic Church who blessed troops and equipment. Each

The point is that people kill for the basest reasons, and come up with an excuse to rationalize it. Sometimes, the excuse is religion. Sometimes it's spreading democracy. Should we destroy democracy as well, for the harm done in its name? Or should we perhaps realize that people aren't always honest about their motives?

But hey forget it. We now return you to your regularly scheduled five minutes hate.

I know it is cool on slashdot to blame religion for everything and sundry. Also, I know it is considered cool to mouth off about things that you know nothing about - especially if religion is also blamed for something in the same post.

* It gives them leverage. If sex is sinful, and the only way to absolve sin is via confession, it keeps you engaged with the church.

It's no coincidence that it's something that most people are biologically wired up to do. Even *thinking* about it is deemed sinful, so you can't escape the association with confession even if you abstain.